EDIT: Since the original writing, I read of the scientific definition of “theory” (which I didn’t know to be distinct) and all this has been cleared up. But I leave the post unchanged. I’m not doing Winston Smith’s work.
Watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Bill O’Reilly, I was intrigued by O’Reilly’s argument (paraphrased) that because evolution is a theory and so is creationism in whole or in part, that science classes should present each.
In those words, fair enough. If they’re still both theories, widely regarded ones at that, what’s to say they shouldn’t present multiple theories. It’s clear to me that one argument, with proven evidence toward it, is the better option. Consider it a victory for science in countries like ours that science has defended its evolution argument well enough that it’s presented as “the way”. In no way do I believe in creationism, so I wonder when theories graduate to ‘accepted fact’. What happened with gravity?
I wonder if it’s a good enough argument that in the past, human theories were strongly disproved (see Galileo), so without conclusive evidence, something will stay a theory. Could you argue that almost anything from the past must be a theory, because we don’t know for certain what happened? Even in human history, errors and intentional misrepresentations must have occurred taken place.
Do we as people need to accept theories as reality, just in order to have a basic grip on reality?